Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Mar 2013 23:33 UTC
Windows "According to Kevin Restivo, an analyst at IDC, the countries where Windows Phone shipments exceeded those of iPhone during the fourth quarter were: Argentina, India, Poland, Russia, South Africa and Ukraine. A seventh 'country' where Windows Phone shipments beat iPhone is actually a group of smaller countries, including Croatia, that IDC lumps together in a category called 'rest of central and eastern Europe'." Not bad. Unsurprisingly, these are Nokia countries.
Thread beginning with comment 556912
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by przemo_li
by unclefester on Thu 28th Mar 2013 09:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by przemo_li"
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Recent news say starting this Q1 quarter Nokia pays $40 for each sold device for the WP license to Microsoft. Minimum $250 million each quarter. The quarters before they got $250 million each quarter from Microsoft. That makes it minus $500 million each quarter they have on top now and no headquarters, land left to sell. Siemens leaving NSN and Huawei as new WP low-end Microsoft partner are hitting in too.


Paying a licence fee of $40 is far cheaper than hiring thousands of developers.

Nokia has a thriving and extremely profitable network business.

Most large companies don't own their own headquarters - or any other real estate.

That limits how far low they can go. Also till today Nokia makes lose with each sold unit including high end Lumia's. Going future down and increasing number of sold devices may not help them in becoming profitable again and they not have much time and money left.


WP8 is super responsive on hardware that can barely run Android ICS. This means that Nokia can sell extremely cheap hardware at premium prices. Nokia WP8 phones cost 50-100% more than Android phones with similar hardware.


Watch out, its an end-game. The 3-No's are going to be completed. Nortel, Novel, Nokia. All exclusive strategic Microsoft partners that went all in, all gone.


Considering that MS has effectively bought Nokia there is no real danger of Nokia going broke.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by przemo_li
by cdude on Thu 28th Mar 2013 14:51 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by przemo_li"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Paying a licence fee of $40 is far cheaper than hiring thousands of developers.

Owning and controlling your own future is invaluable and so is not depending on Microsoft's good will only.

WP8 is super responsive on hardware that can barely run Android ICS. This means that Nokia can sell extremely cheap hardware at premium prices

And so can, and does, Huawei, HTC and Samsung. All of them have the same WP8. Samsung and HTC seem to have given up on WP8, Huawei's bestseller are there Android's (same Hardware like there WP8).

MS has effectively bought Nokia

While not paying a dime and even getting money from Nokia now. $40 for each sold unit, that is double as much Samsung had to pay for there WP licenses. Clever.

there is no real danger of Nokia going broke.

Not broke, they will be cut into pieces and parts, like there patents still worth some $, be sold to Microsoft and others.

Edited 2013-03-28 14:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by przemo_li
by unclefester on Sat 30th Mar 2013 05:26 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by przemo_li"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Owning and controlling your own future is invaluable and so is not depending on Microsoft's good will only.


Have you used WP8? IMHO it is by far the best phone OS around.

And so can, and does, Huawei, HTC and Samsung. All of them have the same WP8. Samsung and HTC seem to have given up on WP8, Huawei's bestseller are there Android's (same Hardware like there WP8).


Nokia is the de facto phone division of MS. Samsung is switching to Tizen. HTC is going nowhere. Huawei is a bottom feeder.

While not paying a dime and even getting money from Nokia now. $40 for each sold unit, that is double as much Samsung had to pay for there WP licenses. Clever.


You need to learn how multinational businesses work. In reality Nokia is deliberately "paying" an exorbitant licence fee to MS. MS in turn "pays" Nokia too much for (possibly worthless) goods and services. In reality they are sham transactions (no actual money is involved) designed to reduce taxes - usually known as Transfer Pricing.

Not broke, they will be cut into pieces and parts, like there patents still worth some $, be sold to Microsoft and others.


The alternative is bankruptcy. Nokia had no future without WP7/8.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by przemo_li
by tylerdurden on Thu 28th Mar 2013 19:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by przemo_li"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17


Paying a licence fee of $40 is far cheaper than hiring thousands of developers.


It depends on the development costs, volume shipments, and what not.


Nokia has a thriving and extremely profitable network business.


Which would be great if that was their bread and butter, but it isn't. Nokia also used to have thriving shoe making business, alas we're talking about the cell phone market...


Most large companies don't own their own headquarters - or any other real estate.


Another silly generalization based in you confusing your perception with reality. Most companies that can afford it, prefer or tend to own their real estate. Why? Because ASSETS (value of owned real estate) look much much better than EXPENDITURES (leasing costs) on the books. Accounting 101 really.

However, companies with liquidity problems are forced to cannibalize their assets when they can't generate enough revenue via product sales/shipments. This is what Nokia was forced to do. Context makes a huuuuuuge difference.


WP8 is super responsive on hardware that can barely run Android ICS. This means that Nokia can sell extremely cheap hardware at premium prices. Nokia WP8 phones cost 50-100% more than Android phones with similar hardware.


Who needs quantitative facts when one can just pull qualitative arguments our of their derriere, right?

Considering that MS has effectively bought Nokia...


That would be news for both MS and Nokia, you should contact them and let'em know...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by przemo_li
by unclefester on Sat 30th Mar 2013 06:01 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by przemo_li"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

It depends on the development costs, volume shipments, and what not.


Licence fees typically have no upfront cost. You only pay for what you sell. It is a far better method of cost control


Which would be great if that was their bread and butter, but it isn't. Nokia also used to have thriving shoe making business, alas we're talking about the cell phone market...


Actually networking IS Nokia's current core business. Phones are basically a sideline.


Another silly generalization based in you confusing your perception with reality. Most companies that can afford it, prefer or tend to own their real estate. Why? Because ASSETS (value of owned real estate) look much much better than EXPENDITURES (leasing costs) on the books. Accounting 101 really.


Wrong. Properties may appear as assets on balance sheets but they are generally considered to be a cost by accountants. Leasing a building is more tax effective than owning one. In fact most large corporations sell their buildings to financiers and lease them back.

Who needs quantitative facts when one can just pull qualitative arguments our of their derriere, right?


The Nokia WP8 phones all have far less RAM and much slower CPUs than Android phones in the same price bracket. eg The Nokia 620 (AUD300 outright) has identical hardware to the Nokia Xperia U (AUD130). Even the flagship Nokia 920 has only 1GB of RAM and a dual core 1.5GHZ CPU - half what the far cheaper Nexus 4 has.

That would be news for both MS and Nokia, you should contact them and let'em know...


Nokia is the de facto owner of the Nokia phone division. Nokia "pays" MS licence fees (a sham deal to minimise tax), drops it's own OS development and decides not to licence Android. In return MS spends billions of dollars to market WP8 phones. That is ownership in all but name.

Edited 2013-03-30 06:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by przemo_li
by zima on Wed 3rd Apr 2013 20:22 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by przemo_li"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

>Paying a licence fee of $40 is far cheaper than hiring thousands of developers.

It depends on the development costs, volume shipments, and what not.

Yes it does. And, IIRC, 3 years or so ago the Symbian division alone cost more than the entire R&D of Apple, for quite meagre results...

Edited 2013-04-03 20:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by przemo_li
by moondevil on Fri 29th Mar 2013 09:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by przemo_li"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Nokia has a thriving and extremely profitable network business.


Yeah, that is the surely the reason why my unit was terminated in 2008. We were just in the way of such profits.


Most large companies don't own their own headquarters - or any other real estate.


Except on NSN's case it was sold, because the running costs were too high.

Reply Parent Score: 2